The "Middle East and Terrorism" Blog was created in order to supply information about the implication of Arab countries and Iran in terrorism all over the world. Most of the articles in the blog are the result of objective scientific research or articles written by senior journalists.

From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."

Saturday, July 31, 2010

The creation of the Palestinians and their demand for a state was a brilliant tactical move, but that is all it is.

The Moslems don't want a state, in truth, the invention of Palestinian identity was a tactical move and they admit that it is part of the Arab plan for destroying Israel in stages.

I quote: "I wish to remind the Israeli authorities, that we consider Palestine not only an integral part of the Arab nation, but part of southern Syria." Who said that? Syrian president Hafez Assad, in 1974.

He repeated this idea in 1987 at the Rabat Ammon Conference, saying "There was never a country called Palestine." King Hussein argued along with him, claiming that "The appearance of a national Palestinian identity is in response to Israel's claim that Palestine is Jewish."

"The proprietor of the Palestinians", Yasser Arafat, revealed the truth in 1970: "The question of boundaries doesn't interest us...from an Arab point of view, there is no need to talk about boundaries as Palestine is just a drop in the ocean , our real nation is the Arab nation which ranges from the Atlantic to the Red Sea and beyond..."

The complete picture was provided by the PLO leader and head of the terrorist group "Al Tsaika," ZoheerMukhsein, who said in an interview for the Dutch newspaper "Trobe" in 1977:

"The Palestinian nation is non existent, its founding was to use as a tool to unify the Arab world in the ongoing war against Israel. Actually, there is no difference between Palestinians, Syrians, Jordanians and Lebanese. We talk about the Palestinian nation for tactical and political purposes. Pan Arab nationalist iinterests mandate defining a separate Palestinian identity opposing Israel.Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders cannot lay claim to Jaffa and Haifa, but as a Palestinian, I can demand Jaffa, Haifa, Beersheba and Jerusalem..."

The Arab League representative, AchmedShukeiry, appearing at the UN in 1956, announced that "this Palestinian creation does not exist, this land is southern Syria."

However, Shukeiry changed his tune when he became the first head of the PLO, the new tool for fighting Israel founded in 1964, when all of Judea and Samaria as well as "east" Jerusalem were still in Arab hands. The PLO, or Palestine Liberation Organization, was founded before the so called "occupation" for the express purpose of "liberating" the "Palestine" within the Green Line and making it Judenrein.

Palestinian nationalism was created to serve as the justification for Arab claims to the Jewish state, once it was realized that pre Six Day War threats to "throw the Jews into the sea" were difficult for the Western world to swallow. Another advantage to this idea was that the terms of reference changed. Israel had been seen as a modern day "David" arrayed against the "Goliath" of the massive Arab world. The Palestinians could take over the role of "David", while the Israelis became "Goliath.".

Now, however, there is a frustrating threat facing those who promoted the Palestinian bluff. The closer to forming a Palestinian state gets, the farther away their dream shifts. Why is that?

Hamas, elected by a large majority in Gaza and equally popular in Judea and Samaria, is actually a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is against individual Arab states. They claim that statehood is a colonialistic, Western concept meant to divide the Arabs so the West could conquer them. They want to form Muslim Caliphates that will be part of a religious Islamic Empire that includes the entire Arab world. That is why Hamas did not declare a state in Gaza although it is the only force in charge there and could do so.

There is no question that in the event of an Israeli withdrawal, Hamas will gain control in all of Judea and Samaria. Hamas has much more support than the rotten to the core, corrupt Abu Maazen government which is considered, justifiably, an American puppet regime. In that event, the idea of an artificial Palestinian state may vanish.

It is frustrating for Palestinian nationalist supporters, whether Arabs, Israelis or others, to realize that the only factor preventing this scenario from coming true is the Israeli presence in Yesha. The IDF, Shabak (ISA) and the settlements are what keeps Abu Maazen in power.

If we leave, the Hamas will arise and completely destroy the Palestinian narrative. And if we don't leave — there still won't be a Palestinian state.

That is why, ironically, if Abu Maazen wishes to continue the Palesitinian "project", he would be better off if he quietly told Israel that he would be happy to see it strengthen the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.

All that remains to be done is for someone to explain these basic facts of Middle Eastern life to the one person who is still living a dream that is disconnected from reality — the President of the United States, BarackObama.

Boaz Haetzni has a degree in mechanical engineering. He is a free-lance columnist and speaker.

I am sorry I wrote this column. Because an audience that demands an explanation of why evil is evil is an audience that has already sided with evil

It's springtime for Jew haters.

This week Oscar winning conspiracy theorist Oliver Stone joined Helen Thomas and Mel Gibson in the swelling ranks of out-of-the-closet celebrity Jew haters. In an interview with the Sunday Times, Stone said that Adolf Hitler had been given a bum rap and that through "Jewish domination of the media," the Jews have inflated the importance of the Holocaust and wrecked US foreign policy.

In the wake of criticism in Jewish circles, on Wednesday Stone's publicist issued a mealy-mouthed clarification.

Stone failed to retract or amend his statement that "There's a major lobby in the United States. They are hard workers. They stay on top of every comment, the most powerful lobby in Washington. Israel has f---ed up United States foreign policy for years."

He also did not retract his view that Jews use the Holocaust to control American foreign policy.

Stone simply referred to his claim that Jews make too much of the Holocaust because the Germans killed more Russians than Jews as "clumsy."

He then broadened his initial allegation that Jews make too much of the Holocaust by allowing that we are joined in our efforts by non-Jews. And since non-Jews are involved also, he was wrong to criticize us.

As Stone put it, "The fact that the Holocaust is still a very important, vivid and current matter today is, in fact, a great credit to the very hard work of a broad coalition of people committed to the remembrance of this atrocity." (Emphasis added.) Stone still believes that the rounding up and exterminating of three-quarters of Europe's Jews is really not as notable or morally troubling as high Russian wartime casualties, but it's not solely Jews' fault that people don't share Stone's views.

Arguably even more despicable that Stone's display of Jew hatred was manner in which it was received. On the one hand, there was the thunderous silence of the media. And on the other hand there were the insistent, repeated attempts to justify his statements.

Readers' talkbacks to write-ups of his remarks were rife with assertions that Stone's statements were not bigoted. Many agreed that Jews dominate the media and since they believe this is true, they argued that saying so is not a bigoted act. Others claimed that while Stone's statements were inaccurate, there is no evidence that he hates Jews and therefore, they weren't bigoted. At any rate, Patrick Goldstein of the Los Angeles Times and many others have argued, it would be wrong for Stone be discredited for his attacks against Jews.

It is difficult to imagine that if someone trafficked in ethnic stereotypes about groups like blacks, and claimed that they wreck US foreign policy to serve their own nefarious aims, Goldstein and the talk backers would defend him.

But then anti-Jewish bigotry has different rules than other hatreds.

Stone and his defenders are not alone either in their attitude towards Jews or their denial of their attitude towards Jews. Indeed, they are part of a worldwide trend.

Take the situation in Malmo, Sweden. Last Friday Jew haters set off firecrackers outside a synagogue in Malmo. The blasts came a day after Jew haters posted a bomb threat on the wall of the synagogue for the second time in two weeks. Malmo is a hotbed of anti-Jewish violence and the Jews of the city are fleeing in droves.

Yet in the face of all this, Malmo's non-Jews cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that there is a problem with anti-Semitism in their city. Even those who are supposed to be responsible for combating anti-Semitism refuse to acknowledge that Jews in Malmo are being attacked because they are Jews.

Bjorn Lagerback is the man in Malmo who is supposed to care about anti-Semitic violence. Lagerback serves as the coordinator of the local forum in the city charged with combating hate crimes. In an interview with Malmo's The Local cited by the World Jewish Congress, Lagerback tried to impress on the world that the bombing was serious. Not because it was violence aimed at Jews, of course.

No, according to Lagerback, this bombing is serious because it might hurt non-Jews. He said "We condemn this completely. Such an event is not just directed against the synagogue, but also at other targets that could be described as ethnic or religious."

Forget about the fact that only Malmo's synagogues, and not its churches and mosques require around the clock security. If no other ethnic or religious groups were targeted would bombing synagogues no longer warrant condemnation?

The acceptance of anti-Semitism has reached epidemic proportions.

In Amsterdam, anti-Semites are making the mundane act of walking around outside in broad daylight a dangerous prospect for Jews. Jews are regularly attacked verbally and physically by anti-Semites as they walk on the streets of the Dutch capital.

In an attempt to catch and punish anti-Semitic thugs, the Amsterdam police force has dispatched policemen dressed as Jews to pound the pavement. The hope is that these decoys will be able to draw out the offenders and arrest them.

Apparently, some Dutch have a problem with punishing anti-Semitic attackers. As Paul Belien reported in the Brussels Journal, "Evelien van Roemburg, an Amsterdam counselor of the Green Left Party, says that using a decoy by the police amounts to [entrapment], which is itself a criminal offence under Dutch law."

In other words, Van Roemburg thinks that people who walk around while appearing to be Jewish are asking for it.

Van Roemburg no doubt also believes that women in mini-skirts deserve to be raped.

All of this brings us to a discussion of the most endemic form of contemporary anti-Semitism: Anti-Zionism. There is no reason for anyone to be surprised that anti-Semites deny that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. After all, they deny that every other form of anti-Semitism is anti-Semitism. Why should anti-Zionism receive special treatment?

It is self-evident that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. To say that Jews — uniquely among all the nations — have no right to freedom and self determination is obviously anti-Semitic.

Anti-Semites give a variety of excuses to justify their rejection of the Jewish people's right to freedom and sovereignty in our homeland. Sometimes they say they have no problem with Jewish nationalism per se. They are simply anti-nationalist generally. But remarkably, these anti-nationalist anti-Zionists invariably just happen to be outspoken supporters of Palestinian nationalism.

Moreover, it is curious that universalist anti-nationalists only have a special term to describe their opposition to Jewish nationalism. No one ever mentions being anti-Irishist, for instance. When someone says they oppose Irish nationalism, the obvious conclusion is that they don't like Irish people. Just so, people who are anti-French tend not to like French people. And yet, the anti-Zionists would have us believe that their opposition to the Jewish state has nothing to do with their feelings about Jews.

Beyond their nonsensical attempts to deny the fact that anti-Zionism is a specific rejection of a specific — that is Jewish — type of nationalism, there is the fact that anti-Zionists tend inevitably to drink from other anti-Jewish sewers as well. Take former British parliamentarian Clare Short for example.

During her just ended career in the British parliament, Short became known as an outspoken anti-Zionist. Short rejected Israel's right to exist and castigated it for its "bloody, brutal and systematic annexation of land, destruction of homes and the deliberate creation of an apartheid system."

But Short's Israel kick didn't end with her frequent condemnations of imaginary but lurid Israeli crimes. As time went by, Short began channeling centuries of British Jew hatred. Like her forefathers who blamed Jews for rain, drought, plague and fire, Shore blamed Israel for global warming.

As she put it in a speech at the European Parliament three years ago, Israel "undermines the international community's reaction to global warming." As Shore saw it, European leaders are properly obsessed with attacking the Jewish state. But because Israel insists on existing and so requires Europeans to condemn it, Israel prevents the Europeans from attending to the threat of carbon which, if left unregulated will "end the human race."

So if the world boils over, the cauldron will be made in Israel.

One of the most prominent anti-Zionists today is Prof. Juan Cole from University of Michigan. Part of being a successful anti-Zionist involves claiming that Jews have no right to the land of Israel. So to be a good anti-Zionist, one needs to deny Jewish history.

To this end, in March Cole published a piece of historical fiction at Salon online magazine. Titled "Ten reasons why East Jerusalem does not belong to Israel," Cole mixed half truths with flagrant lies to justify his denial of Jewish history and belittlement of the Jewish rights.

Cole wrote, "Jerusalem not only was not being built by the likely then non-existent 'Jewish people' in 1000 BCE, but Jerusalem probably was not even inhabited at that point in history. Jerusalem appears to have been abandoned between 1000 BCE and 900 BCE, the traditional dates for the united kingdom under David and Solomon."

This assertion is so mendacious that it takes your breath away. As anyone who has actually been in Jerusalem can attest, it is all but impossible to be physically present in the oldest areas of the city and not bump into relics dating from between 1000-900 BCE.

Cole's allegation is the academic equivalent of Louis Farakhan's claim that white people are devils planted on earth by aliens. As an anti-Zionist anti-Semite, it was just a matter of time until Cole travelled into the fetid swamp of denying the historical record to facilitate his false claim that Jews are not a people and therefore bereft of rights as a nation to our national homeland.

And why shouldn't he cover himself in anti-Semitic muck? So far, the stench has brought him great success. The very fact that I felt compelled to write an essay explaining why anti-Semitism is anti-Semitism and why anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism is depressing proof that anti -Semites have been wildly successful whitewashing their bigotry.

What makes contemporary anti-Semitism unique is its purveyors' great efforts to hide its very existence. Their motivation is clear. Outside the openly genocidal anti-Semitic Muslim world, most anti-Semites are self-described liberals who claim to oppose bigotry. For these people, pretending away their prejudice is the key to their continued claim to enlightenment.

And so the likes of Oliver Stone publish clarifications. And Cole invents history. And the Europeans blame Jews and Israel and Zionism when Jews inside and outside Israel are assaulted and killed.

And I am sorry I wrote this column. Because an audience that demands an explanation of why evil is evil is an audience that has already sided with evil.

Correction: In Tuesday's column I wrote that the US's upgrade in the PLO's Washington diplomatic mission gave added privileges to PLO representatives in the US. In fact, the upgrade is a symbolic gesture of support for the Palestinians. The representatives do not enjoy diplomatic immunity.

Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post.

Western policy-makers grow increasingly-reconciled to co-existence with a nuclear Iran. They assume that, notwithstanding the radical rhetoric, the Iranian leadership is pragmatic, cognizant of its limitations, unwilling to expose its people to devastating Western retaliation and considering nuclear capabilities as a tool of deterrence – and not as an offensive weapon – against the US, NATO and Israel.

However, a nuclear Iran would constitute a clear and present danger to global security and peace, which must not be tolerated. In order to avert such peril, it is incumbent to disengage from illusions and engage with realism.

Unlike Western leaders, the Iranian revolutionary leadership is driven by ideological and religious conviction, bolstered by ancient imperialist ethos:

Jihad is the permanent state of relations between Moslems and non-Moslems, while peace and ceasefire accords are tenuous.

The Shihada commits every Shiite to kill and be killed, in order to advance Shiite Moslem strategy.

The strategic goal of Shiite Islam – which replaced illegitimate Judaism and Christianity – is to convert humanity to Islam.

The religious Shiite zeal is intensified by the Persian-Iranian ethos, shared by secular and religious Iranians, who believe Iran has been a regional and a global power for the last 2,600 years.

Iran's religious/imperialistic strategy has guided Teheran's tactical policy toward the US (the "Great Satan" and the key target for Iran's terror and nuclear), Central & South America (an anti-US terror platform), Iraq (the chief Sunni rival in the Persian Gulf and an arena to weaken the US), Saudi Arabia (an apostate regime), the Gulf States (targeted for revolution and takeover), Afghanistan and Pakistan (arenas to erode the US' image), international terror organizations and terror cells in the US and Europe (weakening Western societies), Syria, Lebanon, Hizballah and Hamas (threatening Israel and advancing regional hegemony) and Israel (the "Little Satan," a Western outpost in the Abode of Islam, the source of Judea-Christian values).

Western leaders are top heavy on "pragmatism" and low on ideology and religion. Therefore, they are preoccupied with Iranian global tactical policy, minimizing the study of Iran's strategic infrastructure of religion, ideology and history, which consider Shia, Jihad, Shihada and Persian imperialism as Teheran's Pillars of Fire.

Western leaders believe in engagement – and not in confrontation – with Iran. However, Teheran's revolutionaries regard such an attitude as a symptom of Western fatigue, of a tendency to "blink first" and of a modern version of the defeatist European slogan: "Better Red than Dead." Moreover, Teheran considers the US a superpower in retirement and retreat, gradually adopting the European state-of-mind and losing its posture of endurance since the 1973 retreat from Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, the 1979 terrorist takeover of the US embassy in Teheran, the 1983 retreat from Lebanon following the blowing up of the US embassy and Marine headquarters in Beirut until the 2011 expected US withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. At the same time, Iran demonstrated its willingness to pay a brutal price for its principles and interests, when sacrificing some 500,000 persons on the altar of the 1980-1988 war against Iraq, including approximately 100,000 children who were dispatched to clear minefields.

Teheran is encouraged by Western preoccupation with engagement and sanctions, which constitute a delusion and not a solution. For instance, Russia and China consider the US a rival and do not share the US assessment of Iran. They benefit from a weakened US and therefore they do not cooperate in the implementation of sanctions. Europe employs tough rhetoric, but displays frail action. And, the UN will not support a tough US policy toward Iran. The longer the sanctions and engagement process, the more time is available to Iran to develop and acquire nuclear capabilities.

Teheran benefits from Western adherence to a supposed linkage between the Palestinian issue and a successful campaign against Iran. However, there is no linkage between the Palestinian issue – or the Arab Israeli conflict or Israel's existence – and the pillars of Iran's strategy. The more entrenched the "Linkage Theory," the heavier the pressure on Israel and the weaker the pressure on Iran.

In 1978, President Carter's policy toward the Shah was perceived as the backstabbing of a US ally, providing a tailwind to the anti-Shah opposition and facilitating the Iranian Revolution. In 2010, Western policy toward Iran is perceived as an acknowledgment of the potency of the revolutionary leadership, thus serving as a headwind to a weakened domestic opposition and minimizing the possibility of a domestically-generated regime-change.

A sustained Western policy toward Iran would confront the Free World with a brutal dilemma: Accepting radical diplomatic, economic, military and religious demands presented by a nuclear Iran, or facing a series of vicious wars, including a rapidly escalated nuclear race among rogue regimes. In order to avoid such a dilemma, it is incumbent to disengage from the illusive options of deterrence and retaliation and engage with the realistic option of military-preemption/prevention. Furthermore, the cost of military inaction would dwarf the worst-case cost of a military preemptive action against Iran.

byDaniel Greenfield

It is sadly unsurprising that Prime Minister Cameron's highly publicized trip to Turkeywent with no mention of that country's continued denial of the Armenian Genocide, and its suppression of Kurdish and Armenian minorities. Indeed when Turkish leader Erdogan discussed his threats of ethnically cleansing Armenians in the UK, Gordon Brown made no more comment on the matter than if Erdogan had been discussing his favorite television programs.

It is in keeping with that conspiracy of silence, that Cameron made no mention of the thousands of political prisoners in Turkish jails, there often for merely expressing an opinion at odds with the state, for singing a folk song, or delivering an official speech in Kurdish. Naturally Cameron did not think to raise the issue of LeylaZana, the first Kurdish woman elected to the Turkish parliament and a winner of the Sakharov Prize, who is still in jail today. Cameron could have at least raised the subject of AyselTuğluk, a member of the Turkish Human Rights Association, who was illegally stripped of her parliamentary immunity and sent to jail for handing out leaflets in the Kurdish language, and is now due to be sent to jail yet again.

But rather than standing up for human rights, Cameroninstead pandered to the radical Islamists who were his hosts, by feeding their appetite for hate directed at Israel. And it did not begin or end with Israel.

Instead Cameron sold out the rest of Europe, declaring that he was "angry" at how long the negotiations to bring Turkey into the EU were taking, and declaring himself the "strongest possible advocate for EU membership". He slammed France and implicitly Germany, for refusing to rush forward to support bringing Turkey into the EU. Cameron sided with Turkey, over France and Germany, betraying allies for enemies. And worse was yet to come.

Not only did Cameron ignore Turkey's ongoing occupation of Cyprus, but he signed a strategic agreement with Turkey that calls for ending the "isolation" of the Turkish Cypriots by upholding their "right to representation" in the European Parliament, and promoting political and cultural contacts with the Turkish Cypriots. What that means is that Cameron committed himself to supporting DervisEroglu from the radical National Unity Party, which calls for Turkish annexation of occupied Cyprus. The strategic agreement signed by Cameron, moves the UK closer to recognizing the Turkish occupation of Cyprus, which currently only Turkey itself recognizes.

Again Cameron makes no criticism whatsoever of Turkey's illegal occupation of Cyprus. He does not mention the fact that he signed an agreement promoting the flow of goods from occupied Cyprus to the UK, while Turkey refuses to accept goods from Greek Cyprus. Of course not. No more than his predecessor was willing to.

Did Cameron do any of this out of principle? Nonsense. Cameron knows as well as anyone about Turkey's state of domestic terror, its persecution of the political opposition, and how unworkable Turkish membership in the EU would be. Instead like Brown before him, Cameron pandered to the Turkish thug-in-chief for a few pounds, hoping to boost British exports to Turkey. In the hope of a few million pounds, Cameron betrayed fellow European nations, signed off on Turkey's occupation of Cyprus, ignored the thousands of political prisoners in Turkish jails, and whitewashed Turkey's real record on Islamic terrorism. And while he and his businessmen friends beamed and shook hands with Turkey's chief terrorist-- others were left to stand up against the violence and brutality of the Turkish regime on their own.

In his rambling speech, Cameron praised Turkey for fighting against terrorism. The reality however is that the only "terrorism" that Turkey fights against, is Kurdish guerrillas, from its large Kurdish minority who want to have their own state, or at least some basic human rights. And when Cameron shook hands with Erdogan, he was shaking hands with a man whose patron, YassinQadi, funneled millions of dollars to Al Queda, and whose own advisor, CuneytZapsu, donated 300,000 dollars to Al Queda. Al Quedaoperates its magazine freelyin Istanbul, which is convenient because Erdogan claims there's no such thing as Islamic terrorism.

If Turkey, as Cameron says, is guarding the flank of Europe... then who in G-d's name is guarding Europe from Turkey? Certainly not Cameron.

Cameron's despicable toadying to Turkey's Thug-in-Chief was one long collection of lies. In his speech, he claimed that "Europe will draw fresh vigour and purpose from a Turkey that embraces human rights and democracy". Turkey's democracy is such that its opposition is routinely jailed. Its human rights has sent 12 year olds to prison for singing folk songs. It has no concept of democracy or human rights. Its 10,000 political prisoners could testify to that. Almost a 1000 of them opposition politicians.

The sham continued as Cameron congratulated Turkey on "its efforts to achieve the ambition of zero problems with all its neighbours, including Iraq". This after Turkish troops repeatedly invaded Iraqjust last month, murdering a 15 year old girl, among others. The Iraqi government protested, to no effect. Cameron, who is supposed to be committed to guaranteeing Iraq's security, instead shamelessly praises the invaders. The only casualties he mentions are those of the Turkish invading forces, not their victims. Never their victims.

And so it goes. Cameron babbles on about Turkey's religious tolerance, while the level of hateful incitement spirals out of control. He talks about the true tolerant Islam, to a man who was at one point imprisoned for his own Islamic radicalism. He takes up arms against all those damned obstructionists who are preventing a lovely regime like Erdogan'sTurkey from joining the EU. He vows to fight them everywhere, like a latter day Churchill, proclaiming not, "There will always be an England", but rather, "There will always be a Turkey in the EU".

If there was any Turk in that room who had the slightest respect for England before Cameron began to speak, it was sure to have vanished in a whiff of contempt. Cameron's speech reminds one of English socialists visiting the Soviet Union and heaping praise on Stalin and the wonderful revolution, before going off to collect their blood money. And now Cameron has done them one better, demanding that a radical Islamist regime share open borders with the EU.

In a speech given while Erdogan prepares to round up political opponents before the election on fraudulent charges of "inciting" Kurdish riots-- Cameron made only one criticism of human rights. Not of Turkey of course. Or of Erdogan, who has jailed about as many of his opponents as Saddam Hussein. No, Cameron courageously blasted Israel, for standing up to Erdogan's IHH thugs, after they beat and stabbed Israeli soldiers inspecting their flotilla carrying aid to Hamas run Gaza.

Cameron blasted the response of Israeli soldiers who fired back after they Turkish Islamist thugs tried to murder them, as "completely unacceptable" and called Gaza, a "prison camp". He demanded a "swift, transparent and rigorous" inquiry. No such demand was of course issued to his hosts for their 10,000 political prisoners, their illegal invasion of Iraq and murder of civilians-- or that Armenian genocide matter. Of course no inquiries are demanded there.

Let us be clear what Cameron has done. He has sold out Europe and the free world by signing on the dotted of an agreement which explicitly trades English support for EU membership for increased exports. This is about money, pure and simple. There are no principles of any kind here. And what does Europe get out of all this? Here isa brief preview of coming attractions;

It is mainly young people who take to the streets, with Turkish flags in their hands, whistles in their mouths and hatred in their eyes.

"We have waited long enough," reads one poster. "Allah wants this war," is the message on another.

British Prime Minister David Cameron's July 27 speech in Turkey will not live on in history. But it should, as an example of the decline of Western diplomacy and of suicide by political correctness. It is a textbook example of how not to conduct international affairs.

It crossed my mind that the speech was written by the Foreign Office for the express purpose of making Cameron look foolish, but then I realized that he and his top advisors probably have no idea why it was such a disaster.

Suppose you are the British prime minister going to Turkey, or to just about any country. What should you say? The theme should be: We can cooperate and do mutually beneficial things. Here's what I can do for you; here's what I'd like you to do for me. And here's what you must not do in order to reap the benefits of my friendship and favor.

Obviously, you need to dress that up in appropriate language. But everything should be conditional. The message to be delivered is that it is in your interest to respect my interests.

Cameron did the precise and exact opposite. His message was: The UK needs Turkey. Turkey is wonderful. Its behavior has been perfect. We are desperate for your help.

What is the effect? A man goes into a bazaar, points to a carpet, and says, "That is the most beautiful carpet I have ever seen. I must have it no matter what the price! How much is it?"

In addition, Cameron committed some other howling mistakes, several of which will amaze you. So please stick with me as I explain and document this — you won't be disappointed. And remember this is not just a matter of one speech; it is a fitting symbol for the entire contemporary Western diplomatic approach to the Middle East, and much more to the world as well. By the way, it is doomed to fail miserably.

Before we begin, remember that this is no longer the old TurkishRepublic. Cameron is lavishing praise on an Islamist-oriented regime which has aligned itself with Iran and revolutionary Islamist groups. And all of Cameron's pandering, as if he were a Western barbarian in the court of the all-powerful Ottoman sultan, is driving a knife into the heart of a Turkish opposition which is genuinely friendly toward the West and horrified by the current regime's subversion of Turkish democracy.

Cameron began by saying:

I've come to Ankara today to establish a new partnership between Britain and Turkey. I think this is a vital strategic relationship for our country.

Note the cringing here. One might have said: "I think this is a vital strategic relationship for our countries." In other words, the speaker would stress there is a mutual benefit. Instead, this polite approach makes it sound as if Turkey is doing the United Kingdom a favor by having a strategic relationship with it. And this is precisely the interpretation put on such things in the local context. This kind of humbleness/flattery is also seen in President BarackObama's speeches.

And here it is again:

People ask me why [I'm visiting] Turkey and why so soon. I'll tell you why. Because Turkey is vital for our economy.Vital for our security.And vital for our politics and diplomacy.

So Turkey holds all the cards, and the West can do nothing but give concessions in hope of winning favor in its eyes. One should remember that a major theme of Iran, Syria, and this Turkish regime is that nothing can be achieved without them, and so the West must bow to their will and do everything they want. Cameron is feeding this monster.

According to him, there are no problems with Turkey on security:

Turkey is a great NATO ally. And Turkey shares our determination to fight terrorism in all its forms — whether from al-Qaeda or the PKK. [Note that he fails to mention Hamas or Hezbollah!] But perhaps more significant still is the fact that Turkey's unique position at the meeting point of East and West gives it an unrivaled influence in helping us get to grips with some of the greatest threats to our collective security.

Look, you don't go to a country and criticize it (unless the country is Israel. Now why is that?), but you don't tell them that everything they are doing is great because if that's not true they will keep on doing it and know there is no cost. Turkey under this regime is not a pro-Western state helping the West against its "Eastern" enemies — as Turkey was between, say, 1950 and 2000 — nor is it a neutral meeting ground. At present, Turkey is on the enemy side.

He continues:

Which Muslim majority country has a long-established relationship with Israel while at the same time championing the rights of the Palestinian people? Which European country could have the greatest chance of persuading Iran to change course on its nuclear policy?

Now this is after the Turkish regime trashed the relationship with Israel and stabbed the United States and the UK in the back by cutting its own deal with Iran and even voting against sanctions at the UN. This is the policy Cameron praises! And then after all these things, he adds:

Whether in Afghanistan or the Middle East, Turkey has a credibility that others in the West just can't hope to have. So I've come here to make the case for Turkey to use this credibility, to go further in enhancing our security and working for peace across our world.

Does this include Turkish regime support for Hamas and Hezbollah, and alignment with Iran and Syria? He should be hinting gently that Turkey is losing its credibility because of the regime's behavior. And therefore Turkey needs to change its behavior, a point that the opposition will be arguing in the next election. By this time I can see the opposition tearing their hair out as another Western leader heaps praise on the regime. And have no doubt the regime will use all this in next year's elections:

Extremist? Transforming Turkey toward Islamism? What do you mean? The West loves us!

Cameron then goes on and makes it clear that Turkey would be doing the EU a favor by joining it, not the tiniest hint of leverage that Turkish membership might depend on the regime's behavior. He could have said:

While I, of course, support you, the path would be easier if …

Followed by some polite and proper hints done with full British charm.

But it gets worse. Cameron is about to insult several of Britain's closest allies, including Germany and France, by making opposition to Turkey's entrance into the EU a form of racism and Islamophobia. For example, he says that opponents are:

The prejudiced.Those who willfully misunderstand Islam. They see no difference between real Islam and the distorted version of the extremists. They think the problem is Islam itself. And they think the values of Islam can just never be compatible with the values of other religions, societies, or cultures.

All these arguments are just plain wrong. The problem precisely is the version of Islam embodied in the current Turkish government. There could be other perfectly pious Muslims ruling Turkey (and Iran, Syria, or the Gaza Strip for that matter) who would interpret Islam in a way relatively compatible with the values of other religions. But not the Islamists!

He also complains of those who:

… see the history of our world as a clash of civilizations, as a choice between East and West. They just don't get the fact that Turkey can be a great unifier. Because instead of choosing between East and West, Turkey has chosen both.

But he doesn't comprehend that the current government of Turkey does see the world as a clash of civilizations. Its foreign minister even wrote a book to that effect, which has never been translated and which the regime is doing its best to conceal.

If I were a German or French journalist, my headline would be: "Cameron Calls German (or French) policy bigoted and anti-Islamic."

Yet Cameron sails on into even worse grounds. He actually praises a Turkish policy which has gone to the brink of war with Israel, sponsored a flotilla run by radical Islamists intending to create a violent confrontation, and is allied with a revolutionary terrorist group. One has to quote it to believe he actually said the following:

Turkey's relationships in the region, both with Israel and with the Arab world, are of incalculable value. No other country has the same potential to build understanding between Israel and the Arab world. I know that Gaza has led to real strains in Turkey's relationship with Israel. But Turkey is a friend of Israel. And I urge Turkey, and Israel, not to give up on that friendship.

Let me be clear. The Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla was completely unacceptable. And I have told PM Netanyahu, we will expect the Israeli inquiry to be swift, transparent and rigorous. Let me also be clear that the situation in Gaza has to change. Humanitarian goods and people must flow in both directions. Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp.

But as, hopefully, we move in the coming weeks to direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians so it's Turkey that can make the case for peace and Turkey that can help to press the parties to come together, and point the way to a just and viable solution.

In other words, Turkey is 100 percent right, I have no criticism of Hamas's behavior, but Turkey can still play a productive role. This is the diplomatic equivalent of insane behavior on Cameron's part.

I don't want to take up too much of your time but I cannot let this gem pass. True, Cameron urged Turkey to continue internal reforms. But there's no hint of the anti-democratic nature of the regime's manipulation of such reforms (for example, to seize control of the courts) and the massive repression of dissidents. He suggests that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, and he even criticizes the Turkey-Iran deal. But note the illogical leap:

Even if Iran were to complete the deal proposed in their recent agreement with Turkey and Brazil, it would still retain around fifty percent of its stockpile of low-enriched uranium. So we need Turkey's help now in making it clear to Iran just how serious we are about engaging fully with the international community.

We hope that the meeting held in Istanbul between the Turkish, Brazilian and Iranian foreign ministers will see Iran move in the right direction.

That meeting is a conference of Iran's supporters! Why would it lead Iran in the right direction? How about Turkey's opposition to sanctions? And again note the beggar's worldview: "We need Turkey's help."

Why should Turkey help? What will you give the regime in exchange for its alleged help?

This regime wants to help Iran, not work against Iran.

Finally, remember that Cameron is a Conservative, the successor of Winston Churchill. That's how deep the appeasement disease has penetrated the Western ruling class.

In a much discussed article in the current issue of the American Spectator titled "America's Ruling Class," Prof. Angelo Codevilla describes the divide between those who run the US - the politicians, bureaucrats and policy establishment - and the rest of the country.

He laments, "Never has there been so little diversity within America's upper crust."

In his view, the American ruling class "was formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits. These amount to a social canon of judgments about good and evil, complete with secular sacred history, sins (against minorities and the environment), and saints. Using the right words and avoiding the wrong ones when referring to such matters -- speaking the 'in' language -- serves as a badge of identity."

The main unifying characteristic of the American "ruling class" as Codevilla describes it is inexhaustible contempt for the majority of their countrymen who are not part of their clique. In his words, "our ruling class does not like the rest of America. Most of all does it dislikes that so many Americans think America is substantially different from the rest of the world and like it that way."

Codevilla's article focuses on US domestic policy. He accuses the ruling class of purposely spending the US into insolvency. He claims that their goal is to aggregate power. The more Americans depend on governmental largesse for their livelihoods, the greater the power of the government to dictate norms of social and political behavior and the greater the governing class's hold on power.

Codevilla claims that the Republicans are the permanent minority in the ruling class which is naturally aligned with the Democrats. When they are in power, the Republicans, he claims repress populist and conservative voices within their ranks calling for small government and do so to maintain their good relations with their colleagues in Democratic ruling circles. His prime example of a ruling class Republican is the first president George Bush.

Codevilla quotes former Soviet ruler Mikhail Gorbachev's retelling of a conversation he reportedly had with the vice president Bush about then president Ronald Reagan. Gorbachev claimed that Bush told him not to take Reagan seriously because, "Reagan is a conservative, an extreme conservative. All the dummies and blockheads are with him."

THERE IS A clear foreign policy corollary to Codevilla's discussion. Just as US bureaucrats, journalists, politicians and domestic policy wonks tend to combine forces to perpetuate and expand the sclerotic and increasingly bankrupt welfare state, so their foreign policy counterparts tend to collaborate to perpetuate failed foreign policy paradigms that have become writs of faith for American and Western elites.

A prime example of this is US Middle East policy. Regardless of its repeated failure over the course of four decades, since 1970, and with ever-increasing urgency since 1988, the consensus view of the US foreign policy elite has been that Israel's size is the cause of violence and instability in the Middle East. If Israel would just contract into the indefensible 1949 armistice lines, everything would be wonderful. The so-called "extremists" in the Arab and Islamic worlds will become moderates. Iran, Syria, the Saudis, the Palestinians, al Qaida, Hizbullah and the rest would abandon terror and beat their suicide belts and ballistic missiles into ploughshares.

An outstanding example of this sort of cross-partisan nonsense was the 2006 bipartisan Iraq Study Group's recommendations to then president George W. Bush. The war in Iraq was going nowhere and the considered view of esteemed Republican and Democratic policy hands was to stick it to Israel.

In the considered view of these wise men, for the US to emerge from Iraq with honor, it didn't actually have to defeat its enemies. Instead, according to Republicans like James Baker and Brent Scowcroft and Democrats like Lee Hamilton and Zbigniew Brzezinski all Bush needed to do was force Israel to cough up the Golan Heights, Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. Then al Qaida in Iraq, the Shiite militias and all the rest would shrivel up or - at a minimum - allow the US to withdraw its military forces from the country without being humiliated.

The likes of Baker, Scowcroft, Brzezinski and Hamilton and their students comprise a permanent Middle East policy ruling class that endures regardless of who is in power and what their actual views about Middle Eastern realities happen to be.

But they couldn't survive if they didn't receive help from Israel. Given that most Americans support a strong Israel and view Israel as a vital US ally in the Middle East, they would be hard-pressed to maintain their failed and unpopular policies if they weren't amply assisted by their counterparts in the Israeli ruling class.

This week Ha'aretz - the trumpet of Israel's ruling class - gave us all a primer in how this sort of thing works. In an article titled, "Obama has ways and means to check on Netanyahu," military commentator Amir Oren disclosed the close collaboration between the Obama administration and a handful of hard-left retired IDF officers against the Netanyahu government.

Oren reported that ahead of Obama's meeting this month with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, retired IDF brigadier generals ShlomoBrom, UdiDekel and Baruch Spiegel met secretly in Rome with retired US rear admiral John Sigler who heads the Middle East research institute at the US Joint Chiefs of Staff. The purpose of their meeting was twofold.

First, as Oren put it, they were asked to "clarify whether in the dispute between [the Obama administration and the Netanyahu government] Netanyahu truly represent the majority in Israel." That is, they were supposed to tell Sigler how to drive a wedge between the democratically elected government and the Israel voters who elected it.

And second, they were supposed to furnish Obama with arguments to reject Netanyahu's arguments for why Israel cannot retreat to the 1949 armistice lines. As Oren put it, "When Netanyahu tells Obama there is something he can't do because it would be the death of him, experts like the three brigadiers general can map out Israel's ranges of flexibility to Sigler, and through him pass them along... to Obama."

Activities like those Oren reports are a permanent feature in Israelpolicy circles. Regardless of who is in office, the likes of Brom, Dekel and Spiegel and their leader YossiBeilin are always working with the Americans and Europeans to force Israel to maintain allegiance to the failed land for peace paradigm. Year in and year out, these anti-democratic and strategically demented but well paid former officials maintain what they euphemistically refer to as "track two," contacts with their counterparts in the European and American ruling class to force the majority of Israelis who don't share their derangement to accept their policy dictates.

Codevilla predicts that a clash between the ruling class and the ruled in the US is just a matter of time, although he makes scant predictions or recommendations for how that clash will play itself out. Just so, the time has come for Israelis to confront our own ruling class and develop methods for weakening its chokehold on Israel's domestic and foreign policy.

For too long and to our unmitigated detriment Israelis have allowed a small unelected minority to dictate our national policies. The views and loyalties of this minority - like their counterparts in the US - are opposed to those of the majority of Israelis.

If our democracy is to have meaning and if our lives and country are to be defended, we need to empower our elected leaders to stand up to those - like Brom, Speigel and Dekel -who work actively to subvert the principle of government by consent of the governed.